Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "baersimon" <baersimon@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> I've seen some examples of piezography prints that are just beautiful and 
> what I like about them is that they don't look digital.   From what I understand 
> (which isn't a lot) it that the not-digitally rendered look occurs because there is 
> no dither pattern.  I just saw an example of an "ultrachrome" print on a 2200 at 
> a friend's studio and it looked great, but it had a dot pattern that was 
> distinctively digital.  I have yet to see a "real world" example of a MIS print next 
> to a piezography print.  Is there a way to get the MIS system to communicate 
> to the printer in a similar fashion to make distinctively "non-digital" look?  How 
> would I find examples of this?  This may be a different question but can you 
> export to the Piezography driver with the MIS inks on a 1280? 
> 
> I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has had experience with both 
> systems.

I think the "digital look" to which you refer is more about the driver than the inks. For 
example, I am using the MIS UT inks on an 1160. Using the Roark workflow (which uses 
the Epson driver), I get a dither pattern which is obvious, probably what you would call a 
digital look. Using QTR, I do not get such a pattern. One of the files I use for testing I also 
have as a Piezography print, and I see precious little diffference between it and the QTR/
MIS combo, except that QTR has better shadow detail, not surprising given the passage of 
time since Piezo. I think all the drivers dither the image, some just do it differently than 
others.